Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:195703 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53675 of 2023 Applicant :- Pushpendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Prakash Sharma,Priyanka Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
2-By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Pushpendra Kumar, who is involved in Sessions Trial No. 543 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Ahirwar and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Section 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Panwari, District Mahoba, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3-First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39911 of 2022.
4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that there are several contradictions in the statement of prosecution witness no. 1, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. It is next submitted that the role of assault has been attributed to the applicant-Pushpendra as well as to Prakash whereas, co-accused Prakash has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35637 of 2022, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 14.07.2022 is also entitled to be released on bail.
5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that PW-1, in his statement recorded before the trial court, has assigned specific role of the applicant stating inter-alia that Pushpendra hit my uncle Sallu on the head with reverse side of axe and Prakash hit my uncle on the head, hands and legs with a stick.
6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that PW-1, in his statement recorded before the trial court, has made specific allegation that Pushpendra has caused injury on the head of the deceased by the back side of an axe, which fully corroborate with the post-mortem report of the deceased because as per post-mortem report of the deceased, cause of death was found ante-mortem head injury. Since the trial of the applicant is going on, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not examiing the statement of prosecution witness meticulously because the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court. This Court also finds that so far as the bail of co-accused Prakash is concerned, he has been granted bail considering the submissions made on his behalf that the injury caused by Prakash is not fatal. The head injury, whereby deceased died has been caused by Pushpendra, hence, case of co-accused Prakash is distinguishable from the case of present applicant on the facts and evidence, therefore, the order granting bail to Prakash is not helpful to the applicant.
7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
9-It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
10-However considering the detention period of the applicant, Superintendent of Police, Mahoba is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that the trial of the applicant may be concluded at earliest.
11-The concerned trial court is directed that on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, their statement shall be recorded on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.
12-Copy of this order be communicated to Superintendent of Police, Mahoba as well as concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Saurabh